The LITTLE WORK project

Honeyman, Peter; Huston, Larry; Rees, Jim; Bachmann, David W.

doi:10.1109/wwos.1992.275697

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Little Work project [2] is similar to Coda, but modifies only the clients, leaving the AFS [3] servers unaltered. Congestion caused by clients' slow links is reduced in a variety of ways, including client-side modifications of AFS, Little Work's underlying RPC, and other congestion-avoidance and control methods.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roam: A Scalable Replication System for Mobility

Ratner

Reiher

Popek

2004

Mobile Networks and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nomadic users require replication to store copies of critical data on their mobile machines while disconnected or poorly connected. Existing replication services do not provide all classes of mobile users with the capabilities they require, which include: the ability for direct synchronization between any two replicas, support for large numbers of replicas, and detailed control over what files reside on their local (mobile) replica. Mobile users must adapt their behavior to match the level of service provided by today's replication systems, thereby hindering mobility and costing additional time, money, and systems management.Roam is a replication system designed to satisfy the requirements of the mobile user. Roam is based on the Ward Model, a replication architecture for mobile environments. Using the Ward Model and new distributed algorithms, Roam provides a scalable replication solution for the mobile user. We describe the motivation, design, and implementation of Roam and report its performance.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roam: A Scalable Replication System for Mobility

Ratner

Reiher

Popek

2004

Mobile Networks and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is done by having the system shield or hide the differences between the stationary and mobile environments from applications. Examples of this approach include Coda [Satyanarayanan et al 1990; Kistler and Satyanarayanan 1992], Little Work [Honeyman et al 1992], and WebExpress [Housel and Lindquist 1996;Chang et al 1997]. …”

Section: Application-transparent Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Ficus file system is another file system supporting disconnected operations with applicationtransparent adaptation, but relies on version vectors to detect conflicts [Heidemann et al 1992]. The Little Work project caches files for smooth disconnection from an AFS file system [Honeyman et al 1992]. Conflicts are detected and reported to the user for manual resolution.…”

Section: Client-server Computing In Mobile Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Client-server computing in mobile environments

Jin¹,

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in wireless data networking and portable information appliances have engendered a new paradigm of computing, called mobile computing, in which users carrying portable devices have access to data and information services regardless of their physical location or movement behavior. In the meantime, research addressing information access in mobile environments has proliferated. In this survey, we provide a concrete framework and categorization of the various ways of supporting mobile client-server computing for information access. We examine characteristics of mobility that distinguish mobile client-server computing from its traditional counterpart. We provide a comprehensive analysis of new paradigms and enabler concepts for mobile client-server computing, including mobile-aware adaptation, extended client-server model, and mobile data access. A comparative and detailed review of major research prototypes for mobile information access is also presented.

show abstract

“…However, mobiletransparent applications can be used unmodified in mobile environments by having the operating system shield or hide the differences between the stationary and mobile environments from the applications. Coda [47] and Little Work [31] used this approach by providing a file system-based interface to applications. These systems consist of a local proxy for some service, in this case the file system, running on the mobile host.…”

Section: Building and Using Mobile Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobile computing with the Rover toolkit

Joseph¹,

Tauber

Kaashoek

1997

IEEE Trans. Comput.

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rover is one of the first architectures that supports the construction of both mobileadaptive applications and mobile-adaptive proxies for mobile-transparent applications. To excel in the harsh conditions of a mobile environment, mobile-adaptive applications are aware of and take an active part in adapting to those conditions. The mobile-transparent approach is appealing because it allows applications to be run without alteration. The contributions of this thesis include the Rover architecture and a reference implementation, the Rover Toolkit. Together, the architecture and toolkit support a set of programming and communication abstractions that enable and simplify the construction of both mobile-adaptive proxies for mobile-transparent applications and new mobile-adaptive applications. The programming abstractions include Relocatable Dynamic Objects, a form of code-and data-shipping, along with remote invocation and method logging, that allows mobile-adaptive applications to dynamically adapt to environmental changes, and programming language extensions for reliable execution of applications at servers. The communication abstractions are based upon Queued Remote Procedure Call, a form of remote invocation that provides asynchronous, reliable delivery of requests and results. Using the Rover abstractions, applications obtain increased availability, concurrency, resource allocation efficiency, code reuse, fault tolerance, data consistency, application adaptation to environmental changes, and more efficient scheduling and utilization of communication channels. Experimental evaluation of a suite of mobile applications built with the toolkit demonstrates that such application-level control can be obtained with relatively little programming overhead and allows correct operation, increases interactive performance, and reduces network utilization under intermittently connected conditions. John Guttag also deserves thanks for mentoring me over the years. I thank him for the guidance he has given me, especially when I was changing research groups and during my search for a job.I thank David Gifford for his efforts during the design stages of the Rover toolkit, in particular his ideas for the semantics of QRPC.I thank my parents for the motivation they instilled in me, for all the support they have provided, and for their faith in me.I owe a lot of thanks to the rest of the Rover project team: Joshua Tauber, George Candea, Constantine Cristakos, Alan F. deLespinasse, and Michael Shurpik. Special thanks go to Josh for all the great design arguments/discussions we shared that helped shape the Rover architecture and for his help in building and debugging applications.I thank the Parallel and Distributed Operating Systems group for reading many drafts of the papers behind this thesis (thanks Massimiliano Poletto, Eddie Kohler, and Greg Ganger) and for providing me with a fun, exciting, and sometimes loud (thanks David Mazieres and Emmett Witchel), research environment. Thanks also to Neena Lyall for making the administ...

show abstract

The LITTLE WORK project

Cited by 22 publications

References 2 publications

Roam: A Scalable Replication System for Mobility

Roam: A Scalable Replication System for Mobility

Client-server computing in mobile environments

Mobile computing with the Rover toolkit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About